CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The “Management-Per-Result” Approach to International Development Project Design

Ika, Lavagnon A., Lytvynov, Vasyl·2011·Project Management Journal
DOI 10.1002/pmj.20248
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Results-based management (RBM) has proved to be a valuable tool for international development project management; however, there are some inconsistencies that limit the use of RBM at the design phase to manage for results. This article presents a “management-per-result” approach to reinforcing the project design function of RBM and illustrates its application to a real-life project. Shying away from a technocratic approach, it emphasizes a “quick-and-dirty” approach and proposes an updated version of the logical framework to include success criteria and factors and very rough estimates for both project costs and benefits for targeted project results for different types of projects (infrastructure development, “process” type of project, and so forth).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pmj.20248

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.03.005 · DOI
  2. Binnendijk A., 2000, Results based management in the development co-operation agencies: A review of experience.
  3. 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00060-1 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/pmj.20068 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/pad.4230080107 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00060-1 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00008-5 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.002 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.respol.2003.04.001 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00012-1 · DOI
  11. European Commission., 2007, Support to sector programs. Covering the three financing modalities: Sector budget support, pool funding and EC project procedures.
  12. Flint M., 2003, Easier said than done A review of results-based management in multilateral development institutions.
  13. 10.1002/pad.4230060414 · DOI
  14. Hirschman A. O., 1967, Development projects observed.
  15. 10.1002/pad.147 · DOI
  16. Hulme D., 2007, The making of the millennium development goals: Human development meets results-based management in an imperfect world.
  17. Hutton G., 2004, Evaluation of the costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements at the global level.
  18. 10.1108/17538371011014035 · DOI
  19. Ika L. A., 2010, Towards a critical perspective in international development project management.
  20. Ika L. A., 2009, Journal of Global Business Administration, 1, 55
  21. Joint Inspection Unit (JIU)., 1999, Results-based budgeting: The experience of the United Nations System Organizations.
  22. 10.1002/pmj.20034 · DOI
  23. Minogue M., 1998, Beyond the new public management: Changing ideas and practices in governance., 10.4337/9781035303816 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/pad.4230030405 · DOI
  25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)., 1994, Performance management in government: Performance measurement and results-oriented management.
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)., 2002, Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management.
  27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)., 2002, Managing for development results and aid effectiveness
  28. Osborne D., 1992, Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector.
  29. 10.1002/pad.4230030404 · DOI
  30. 10.2139/ssrn.984053 · DOI
  31. Schacter M., 1999, Results-based management and multilateral programming at CIDA: A discussion paper.
  32. Schick A., 2007, Conceptual elements of results-based budgeting.
  33. 10.1002/pad.4230080103 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.11.001 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.011 · DOI
  36. Suarez R., 1993, The economic impact of the cholera epidemic in Peru: An application of the cost-of-illness methodology
  37. 10.1002/pad.4230120305 · DOI
  38. Tanburn J., 2008, The 2008 reader on private sector development: Measuring and reporting results
  39. 10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00030-7 · DOI
  40. United Nations (UN)., 2009, Millennium development goals.
  41. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)., 2000, UNDP programming manual
  42. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)., 2007, Evaluation of results-based management at UNDP!
  43. Watkins T., 2009, An introduction to cost benefit analysis.
  44. Watkins T., 2009, The relationship between private profitability and net social benefit.
  45. World Health Organization., 2008, The global burden of disease: 2004 update.
  46. World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC)., 2000, Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 report.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 20

Metadata

Authors
Ika, L. A., & Lytvynov, V.
Affiliations
  • Université du Québec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Québec, Canada
  • International Institute of Business, Kiev, Ukraine
Venue
Project Management Journal
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-07
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
87-104
ISSN
  • 8756-9728
  • 1938-9507
DOI
10.1002/pmj.20248
Cited by
20
References
0
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review